Peerage law

Incidentally, the House of Lords made a standing order in 1954 directing that the committee may deny a claim if the co-heirs have entered into an "improper arrangement."

In 1626, the King decided not to issue a writ of summons to John Digby, 1st Earl of Bristol, who was charged with, but not convicted of, high treason.

The writ was accompanied by a letter from the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, Thomas Coventry; it read, "I ... signify His Majesty's pleasure herein further; That, howsoever he gives way to the awarding of the writ, yet his meaning thereby is not to discharge any former direction for restraint of your Lordship's coming hither; but that you continue under the same restriction as you did before, so as your Lordship's personal attendance is to be forborne.

In 1624, Frances, Viscountess Purbeck, who had been separated from her husband and engaged in a relationship with another man, gave birth to a presumably illegitimate son, Robert.

The matter was referred to the House of Lords, which unanimously ruled in Rex v Purbeck that no "fine" could allow a peer to dispose of his peerage.

The origins of the title are unclear, but is known that in 1404, a man named Alexander Stewart forced the suo jure Countess, Isabel Douglas, to sign a charter conveying the peerage to him and his heirs.

He argued: The House of Lords Committee on Privileges, which did not include any Scottish members, ruled in 1875 that the Earldom of Mar was newly created in 1565, passed only to heirs-male, and therefore belonged to the Earl of Kellie, and not to Goodeve-Erskine.

The Lord Chancellor, Roundell Palmer, 1st Baron Selborne, declared it to be "final, right or wrong, and not to be questioned".

Many Scottish peers were outraged; the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres even wrote a two-volume history of the earldom refuting the ruling of the committee.

It was therefore suggested that the group of judges admitted to Parliament for the duration of their respective lives be added to the class of hereditary peers of the realm.

During the debates, it was pointed out that no case of a life peer sitting in the House of Lords had occurred for over four centuries — the question, then, was, whether or not the power of the Crown was lost with time.

Mortimer Sackville-West therefore was not allowed to succeed to the Barony of Buckhurst, which remained vested in his eldest surviving brother, Reginald.

In 1922, the Viscountess Rhondda, a peeress suo jure, claimed a seat in the House on the grounds that sitting in Parliament constituted the exercise of a public function.

At first, the matter was referred to the Law Lords, who were unanimously of the opinion that women were qualified to sit in the House by virtue of the act.

In 1965, Randal McDonnell, 8th Earl of Antrim, along with some other Irish peers, petitioned the House of Lords to recognise their right to elect representatives, the matter being sent to the Committee for Privileges.

The Lord Reid, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, delivered the opinion with which most members of the Committee agreed, determining against the petitioners' argument that representative peers represented Irish peers, not Ireland by pointing out that the Act of Union gave them seats "on the part of Ireland."

Lord Reid wrote, "A statutory provision is impliedly repealed if a later enactment brings to an end a state of things the continuance of which is essential for its operation."

In order to prevent further appeals on the matter, Parliament passed in 1971, as a part of the annual Statute Law Repeals Bill, a clause revoking the sections of the Act of Union relating to the election of Irish representative peers.

The government asserted that it was inappropriate for the committee to give an opinion on the hypothetical effect of a bill that was yet to be enacted, instead of fulfilling its usual role of applying already existing law.

The Lord Mayhew's counsel argued, "The purpose of a writ of summons is to bring a peer to parliament for the first time.

Plainly, the monarch's command would not be fully obeyed by a peer who answered the summons, arrived at Parliament and then immediately departed again."

It was further argued that the only way to rescind the requirement of Article XXII would be to dissolve the Union between England and Scotland, which, of course, the House of Lords Bill did not seek to do.

It was further pointed out by the government that, even if the election of Scottish peers were entrenched, Parliament could amend the provision under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.

In 1999, the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, recommended a Canadian newspaper magnate, Conrad Black, to be raised to the peerage.

Representatives of the Canadian Government indicated their approval, but immediately before Queen Elizabeth II could grant the peerage, the Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien, advised her not to elevate Black.

Chrétien cited the Nickle Resolution, which ordered that an address be presented to the British Sovereign requesting that he not award "any title of honour or titular distinction."

Theoretically, the honours prerogative may be exercised only by the sovereign or a representative thereof (in this case, the Governor-General of Canada), though in practice it is seldom utilised but on the advice of Ministers of the Crown.

While the non-justiciability of the honours prerogative was affirmed, the decision did not address the issue as to what would occur in the event of conflict between ministers of the Crown.

Should Blair have chosen to insist upon the matter, the Queen would have elevated Black to a British peerage, the protestations of the Canadian Government notwithstanding.

Indeed, in 2001, two Canadians—the Vice-Chancellor of Queen's University Belfast, George Bain, and a billionaire, Terence Matthews—were awarded knighthoods without consultation with Canadian authorities.